The
reader’s patience is requested in the fact that these Jesus
pages are in effect a kind of sub-Web, “piggy-backing” on the
principal Web, http://www.paulonpaul.org,
and thus that the As Paul Tells It . .
.designation at the top of each page is not quite accurate.
The Jesus
Traditions Home Page is readily accessible by clicking on Contents,
to be found at the top and bottom of each page.

In our discussion of
the [so-called] Sermon on the [so-called] Mount, we have already looked
at three of the six contrasts of Matthew
5:21-47, where Jesus addresses problems of murder, adultery and divorce;
we now look at sayings which address problems of perjury, of retaliation,
and of the treatment of enemies.

4
The Problem of Mendacity (Matthew
5:33-37)

Where is integrity to be found? How is falsehood to be remedied? A
brave attempt was made in the Mosaic legislation, with the prohibition of
false testimony, (Exodus 20:16), or of swearing an oath falsely by God’s
name (Leviticus 19:11-12; Numbers 30:2).

Matthew 5:33 Again, you have heard that it was
said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry
out the vows you have made to the Lord.”

On the contrary, Jesus makes his plea for plain speech, a Yes
or a No.

Matthew 5:34-37
34But I say to you,
Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or
by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the
city of the great King. 36And
do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let
your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this
comes from the evil one.

This response, which is attributed (I think accurately) to Jesus, needs
to be approached with some care, to avoid making too much of it—or too
little. Some reading between the lines seems justified, but not too much.

• At the least, Jesus, in a radical move, sweeps away
the whole system of oath-taking: “Do not swear at all.”

• Further, it is arguable that Jesus is implying
something more than plain speaking (without oaths), namely, that
truth-telling arises from persons who are truth-ful. This may well be an
instance of the proverbial point made later in Matthew’s collection of
sayings: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20, KJV; cp.
Luke 6:45). Thus, plain speaking is an implicit call for that inner
integrity which is the only guarantee of truth-telling; such integrity in
turn implies a personal wholeness which flows from an inner reformation.

But of course
truthfulness cannot be imposed upon a person who is inclined to falsehood.
An oath is no guarantee of truthfulness, as Aeschylus (5th century B.C.E.)
recognized: “It is not the oath that makes us
believe the man, but the man that makes us believe the oath.”

Jesus surely
recognized as much as did Aeschylus the futility of an oath.

5The Problem of Achieving
Harmonious Relationships (Matthew 5:38-42)

The obligation to
turn the other cheek or go the second mile is one of the best
known—and least observed—of the teachings with which Jesus challenges
his disciples.

Matthew uses mainly
Q
[blue] material, with which he has combined his own material [green],
whether editorial, or written or oral traditions.

Matthew 5:38-42

Luke 6:29-30

38You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

39But
I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer.

But if anyone strikes you on
the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and
if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;

29If
anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from
anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even yourshirt.

41and
if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

42Give
to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to
borrow from you.

30Give
to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your
goods, do not ask for them again.

The legal stipulations
of the Hebrew scriptures were clear: they prescribed the lex talionis, or
the law of (equal) retaliation. This rule required “. . . life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21; compare Exodus 21:23-24;
Leviticus 24:19-20). As severe as this might seem, it did represent a stage
of moral development which was more equitable (and thus more humane) than
unlimited or capricious retaliation.

Nevertheless, in contrast to this retributive solution for assaults against life or limb or
property, Jesus boldly proposes a strategy for achieving reconciliation:
turning the other cheek, offering one’s outer as well as inner garment,
and going the second mile.

Our sources do not
tell us how Jesus reached his conclusion. One may suppose that he offered
this
revolutionary approach to human relationships because it was the right
thing to do; because it was the loving thing to do (of which more will be
said below); and because (surprisingly) it was the prudent thing to
do.

Prudent? If the problem was how people might live in harmonious relationships,
the way of retaliation—even
equal retaliation—had shown itself to be deficient. Retaliation is deficient in that it easily becomes
revenge, and revenge does little to repair human relationships and build
community. Blood feuds, whether on an individual or international scale,
are notoriously difficult to ameliorate. Hence it is more wisdom than folly to counsel reconciliation rather than
retaliation, however costly the reconciliation may seem.

Matthew uses
a great deal of Q
[blue] material, with which he has combined his own material [green],
whether editorial, or written or oral traditions.

Matthew 5:43-47

Luke 6:27-28, 32-35

43‘You have heard that
it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”

44But I say to
you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

27But I say to you
that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless
those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

45so
that you may be children of your Father in heaven;

*35band you will be children of the Most
High;

for he makes his
sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and on the unrighteous.

*35cfor he is kind to the ungrateful and the
wicked.

46For
if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even
the tax collectors do the same?

32If
you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even
sinners love those who love them.

47And
if you greet only your
brothers and sisters, what more are you doing
than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

33If
you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?
For even sinners do the same.

34If
you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that
to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But
love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.
Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most
High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the
wicked.

__________________________
*A different order in Luke

This is surely one of
the hard sayings of Jesus. We can hardly imagine a moral imperative which
so assaults us as counter-intuitive and perfectionist. This final contrast
does however accomplish several things: it provides a theological
foundation for Jesus’ new morality; it helps to clarify what Jesus meant
by love; and it gives us a fresh approach to the resolution of personal
enmity.

A Theological
Foundation. If hatred for enemies
is not formulated precisely as a commandment in the Hebrew Bible, one
encounters sufficient examples of such hatred, as in Psalms 53 to 59, to
justify Matthew’s formulation—and if hatred for enemies comes quite
naturally, a commandment is hardly needed.

By contrast, Jesus
lays upon his disciples the obligation to love their enemies—and breaks
the moral sound-barrier. This generous manner of treating an enemy is
grounded in an equally generous view of the God who lavishes sun and rain
on the evil as well as the good, on the unrighteous as well as the
righteous. Those who love their enemies enjoy a special kinship with God,
as his children (Matthew 5:45), and hence a certain likeness to God. This
God-likeness is already announced in the ancient creation narratives,
which tell of humankind’s having “become like one of us” (Genesis
3:22), or of having been created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).
But here in the Matthew saying the moral kinship with God is identified
more specifically as dealing graciously with those who do not deserve it.

A Clarification of
Love (agapê). While the command to love one’s enemy seems counter-intuitive,
it is less so if we understand that love as used here does not
mean a romantic feeling or attraction, or necessarily even liking the
enemy, but instead good will toward the enemy, actively seeking the
enemy’s best interests. Click on Love
(Agapê),
for further discussion. We still require a heroic measure of grace to love
our enemy, even in this more limited sense.

A New Perspective
upon Resolving Personal Enmity. The words of Jesus are an invitation
to “think outside the box,” and to explore new ways of conflict
resolution, in which there is opportunity to examine the urgent interests
of each party and to seek common ground. When we have acknowledged this,
we are still confronted with the question whether such an approach is
limited to interpersonal reconciliation, or whether it should apply also
to public policy issues.

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division
of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of
Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.
Articles (as noted) used by permission of Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies.
Materials on this site may be downloaded for personal study and
research, but quotations of this material should be appropriately
acknowledged.